YouTubeXLinkedInFacebookTelegramTelegramRumbleRumbleInstagram

ACRU files Amicus Curiae in Heller v. DC

By |2023-05-20T09:40:53-04:00October 9th, 2007|

The American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on October 5, urging the Court to take the appeal of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision last March holding that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The ACRU wants the Court to take the case to affirm and thereby greatly strengthen this landmark ruling.

ACRU General Counsel Peter Ferrara told the Court, “The courts cannot treat the Second Amendment as a politically incorrect, disfavored stepchild of the Bill of Rights. Fidelity to the Constitution requires the courts to give […]

ACRU files Amicus Curiae in Heller v. DC

By |2023-05-20T09:40:53-04:00October 9th, 2007|

The American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on October 5, urging the Court to take the appeal of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision last March holding that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right of citizens to keep and bear arms. The ACRU wants the Court to take the case to affirm and thereby greatly strengthen this landmark ruling.

Parker v. District of Columbia

By |2023-05-20T09:40:55-04:00October 7th, 2007|

The American Civil Rights Union filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court on Friday, October 12 in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia urging the Court to grant the requested writ of certiorari on behalf of 5 of the original 6 plaintiffs seeking to strike down the District’s gun control laws as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had found that these 5 plaintiffs did not have standing in the case and dismissed them from the suit.

READ THE AMICUS BRIEF HERE.

Who Gets to Sue the Government?

By |2023-05-20T09:41:26-04:00July 25th, 2007|

On 25 June, the Supreme Court decided the case of Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation. As the name of the appellee suggests, they seek to remove all references to religion from all public places. They filed suit seeking a court order that the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (directed by Mr. Hein) was an unconstitutional use of federal funds.

The ACLU did file a brief in this case, supporting the effort of the Freedom from Religion Foundation to shut down the White House Office of Faith-Based … Initiatives.

The trial court, however, dismissed the case for lack of […]

Arizona Wins, Tree-Huggers Lose

By |2023-05-20T09:41:26-04:00July 25th, 2007|

Arizona Wins, Tree-Huggers Lose

On 24 June, the Supreme Court decided the case of National Association of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife. At issue was the interplay between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Endangered Species Act, as they jointly affected a water discharge plan in Arizona, which in turn affected the ability of contractors to build houses. Justice Alito wrote the Opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas, and the Chief Justice, approving the Arizona plan. There was a Dissent by Justice Stevens, joined by the other three Justices, and a separate Dissent by Justice Breyer.

Convict: "Gimme a Break" – Supreme Court: "No"

By |2023-05-20T09:41:27-04:00July 25th, 2007|

On 21 June, the Supreme Court decided the case of Rita v. United States. There were a total of four Opinions in the case, the majority Opinion by Justice Breyer, two Concurrences by Justices Stevens and Scalia, and a solitary Dissent by Justice Souter. The question was marvelously simple, and didn’t seem to justify the time and firepower devoted to it. (The ACLU did not file a brief in this case, but several of its legal and political allies did, on behalf of the criminal.)

Victor Rita bought a “gun kit” from InterOrdinance which apparently when assembled produced an operating machine gun, […]

Three Noteworthy Cases on 9th Circuit Docket

By |2023-05-20T09:41:30-04:00July 17th, 2007|

The Honolulu Advertizer has picked up my latest Op-Ed. Here it is:

Three noteworthy cases on 9th Circuit docket

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is proving itself once again to be a powerhouse among the circuits. And based on some of the cases that it will decide this year it might actually edge out the D.C. Circuit as the most influential circuit court in the nation.

With its headquarters in San Francisco, the 9th Circuit is the largest of the 13 courts of appeals, and this term there’s a lot happening. Three of the cases awaiting final disposition by the 9th Circuit are quite noteworthy. And depending […]

Press Release: ACRU Applauds Another Step Towards a Colorblind Society

By |2023-05-20T09:38:57-04:00June 29th, 2007|

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled on an affirmative action case involving a Seattle school district. The ACRU supports the challenge to the school district’s race-based student assignment plan. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the school district argued its decision to use race is entitled to deference, a presumption of correctness before the law.

ACRU Senior Fellow and constitutional law expert Horace Cooper said that, “The Supreme Court today barred school assignment plans that take account of students’ race. It is a shame that more than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education was decided by […]

The New York Times ignores the Constitution, again

By |2023-05-20T09:39:03-04:00June 7th, 2007|

Here’s my latest op-ed, published in today’s Washington Examiner (though they spelled my name incorrectly):

WASHINGTON – A review by Adam Cohen of a new book, Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas, appeared earlier this week in The New York Times.

The review demonstrates that neither Cohen, nor the authors of the book, nor the editors of The Times have a clue about what it means to have a constitution and how such a document operates.

The review began with Cohen getting his knickers in a twist over the fact that Justice Thomas does not ask questions during oral argument. It […]

Anti-Death Penalty Sleight of Hand By Liberal Justices

By |2023-05-20T09:39:05-04:00June 4th, 2007|

Uttecht v. Brown, Case No. 05-413, 2 June 2008:

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer, claimed in Dissent that the Court is “violating” its own prior cases, by allowing a trial judge to exclude a juror who expressed opposition to the death penalty, in a death penalty case. The Dissent made clear the belief by these four Justices that every possible step to prevent a jury from imposing

a penalty of death, should be taken.

Note this incredible statement in footnote 1 of the Dissent:

“The Court opens its opinion with a graphic description of the underlying facts of […]

Go to Top